... I mean, let’s say I have two sorts of alchemy. One sort says that I can produce gold by carbonizing a rabbit and saying “wugga wugga”. Another sort says that I can produce gold by mixing human blood and table salt when the moon is in Scorpio and reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

What the heck would distinguish one of these as any more competent than the other?

Perhaps you could say that one or the other was more like what ignorant folks were likely to do in the 15th century ... but is that really relevant? I mean, unless we are simply talking about history?

Maybe I should have said #4 but I was referring to one with the numbers for the variations.

I am not trying to change your mind about astrology I really don’t care what anyone thinks about it.

I was simply saying that every individual’s chart has to be done for the time and place of their birth if you are going to do anything at all. The horoscopes in the papers are Sun sign only and would apply for a 30 day period for every year for every point on the planet so even if astrology were 100% valid the newspaper stuff would still be garbage.

... I mean, let’s say I have two sorts of alchemy. One sort says that I can produce gold by carbonizing a rabbit and saying “wugga wugga”. Another sort says that I can produce gold by mixing human blood and table salt when the moon is in Scorpio and reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

Ooo! Gold! You make us all some so we can be rich? JK

Signature

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Well, to be honest, applying a 30 day period for every year for every planet point is an equally valid. That method and the method in which you take into account all of these other factors (for what reason? I see no actually logic behind it) are both 0% valid since each takes into account the motion of the stars and planets relative to earth, but neither incorporates the idea the motion of the stars and planets has absolutlely no effect on our daily lives whatsoever. So given that neither has any validity, 1) the method you described in the post with the numbers hasn’t got any more validity than the newspaper method 2) more people consult the Newspaper for their stars than will ever consult a guy who uses the other method (so the newspapers need debunking and the other guy isn’t worth bothering with) and 3) neither the newspaper method nor the other method will ever accurately predict someones future, but the newspaper method at least benefits from the fact that they can turn a higher rate of profit for a greatly reduced workload.

Additionally, if Dawkins then took the criticism on board and agreed to show that the other method is no better than chance, another astrologer could chime in with “Well, was the reading done while dancing naked round a thorn bush at midnight and chanting gregorian plainchant into a bucket? No? Well, it’s hardly surprising that it didn’t work then.” and when he debunks that astrologer as well, someone else will not unreasonably state that he was using the wrong type of calendar, and it becomes a never-ending game.